芯片法案，终告破产

Core Viewpoint - The transformation of the CHIPS Act from a subsidy program to a government equity investment model signifies a major shift in the U.S. semiconductor industry strategy, reflecting a move from "market repair" to "national control" [2][4]. Group 1: Origin of the CHIPS Act - The CHIPS Act was born out of deep anxiety over the decline of U.S. semiconductor manufacturing capabilities, with the U.S. share of global semiconductor production dropping from 40% in 1990 to just 12% by 2020 [4]. - The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the semiconductor shortage, leading to significant losses for automakers and revealing critical weaknesses in the U.S. semiconductor supply chain [4]. - The CHIPS Act authorized $52.7 billion for semiconductor manufacturing incentives, aiming to increase U.S. production of advanced chips to 20% by 2030, attracting global semiconductor companies with a total investment commitment of $388 billion [4]. Group 2: Intel's Situation - Intel, the largest beneficiary of the CHIPS Act, received $7.86 billion in subsidies but faced significant operational challenges, including a net loss of $1.654 billion in Q2 2024 and a market cap decline of over 60% [6]. - The company is lagging behind competitors like TSMC and Samsung in advanced process technology, leading to delays in new factory constructions and a restructuring of its leadership [6][7]. - The U.S. government is negotiating to acquire a 10% stake in Intel, marking a shift from support to direct government control, raising legal and ethical concerns [7]. Group 3: TSMC's Challenges - TSMC received $6.6 billion in subsidies for building advanced chip manufacturing facilities in Arizona but faced cultural clashes and labor issues that delayed project timelines [8][9]. - The company had to increase local employee ratios to 85% due to union pressures, which extended the timeline for production ramp-up and increased costs [8]. - TSMC's executives discussed the possibility of returning subsidies if forced to accept government equity, highlighting the tension between government control and corporate autonomy [9]. Group 4: Samsung's Restrictions - Samsung received $4.75 billion in subsidies for a facility in Texas but encountered significant technical challenges, delaying production and leading to workforce reductions [10][11]. - The company faced strict limitations on expanding its production capabilities in China, which could hinder its global competitiveness [10]. - Samsung's subsidy amount was reduced from $6.4 billion to $4.75 billion, signaling the unpredictable nature of government support based on political considerations [11]. Group 5: Micron's Position - Micron, the only U.S.-based memory manufacturer, received $6.1 billion in funding to build new factories but faces challenges in entering the high-bandwidth memory market, where it is significantly behind competitors [12]. - The company is not required to offer equity to the government, which alleviates some control risks but may lead to over-reliance on government support [12]. Group 6: Traditional Manufacturers' Struggles - Texas Instruments received $1.6 billion for new factories but has not garnered the attention that larger projects have, despite the critical role of traditional chips in various industries [13]. - GlobalFoundries, another traditional manufacturer, received $1.5 billion but still faces significant funding challenges and must rely on self-financing for expansion [14]. Group 7: Research Institutions' Dilemma - The National Semiconductor Technology Advancement Center (NATCAST) was allocated $7.4 billion for research but recently had its funding canceled, jeopardizing its operations and future projects [16][17]. - The cancellation of funds highlights the fragility of research institutions that depend on public funding, raising concerns about the sustainability of semiconductor research in the U.S. [17]. Group 8: Overall Assessment of the CHIPS Act - The CHIPS Act's failure is attributed to a fundamental misunderstanding of market dynamics and the complexities of a globalized industry, leading to ineffective resource allocation and a lack of long-term solutions [19][20]. - The act has not only failed to reshape the global supply chain but has also accelerated fragmentation in the industry, increasing costs and complicating global innovation [20].